Where is your CVC code?
Those of us who work in the gun control movement understand as well as anyone why a push for nonviolence is desperately needed in the United States. Two incidents that occurred within the span of a week last month reminded me of how ingrained—and absurd—the culture of violence is in our country.
On December 9, I traveled to MSNBC’s studios in Washington, D.C. to appear on “NewsNation with Tamron Hall.” I was scheduled to comment on two new National Rifle Association (NRA) lawsuits in Texas. One lawsuit challenges a 42-year-old federal law that bars handgun sales to those under the age of 21 by federally licensed dealers. The other targets a 15-year-old Texas law that prohibits those under the age of 21 from carrying concealed handguns in public.
The NRA’s 18-year-old plaintiff in these cases, James D’Cruz, has made headlines by posting a series of violent and disturbing comments on his Facebook page over the past three years. Here’s a sampling of his musings, which bring to mind such infamous figures as Columbine shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, as well as Viriginia Tech gunman Seung Hui-Cho:
There is no redemption, There is no forgiveness. I will stare into your eyes as I pull the trigger and laugh as you hit the ground with your last, pathetic breath.
im bored…ill light someone on fire
an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, thats why I take their heads.
Anyway, I walk into the MSNBC waiting room that day, and immediately see breaking news on their television screens. NewsNation was providing live coverage from Escondido, California, where law enforcement authorities were burning down a house that contained the largest stockpile of explosives ever found in a private dwelling (which made it too dangerous to enter and clear out by hand). It is unclear why the home’s owner, George Jakubec, was stockpiling high explosives, bomb-making materials, handmade grenades, guns, and ammunition. He is also suspected of robbing three San Diego banks.
After a few minutes, I was walked into a private studio, put in front of a camera, and even had a mike clipped on my suit jacket—but the images of this startling fire were just too good to resist. A voice in my earpiece told me they would not have time to air my segment. Could I come back some other time?
The irony of being preempted by a bomb maker as I was preparing to talk about a potential school shooter was not lost on me.
The following week, things got even stranger. I was called by the CBS affiliate in Pittsburgh (KDKA) to appear on NewsRadio 1020 with conservative host Mike Pintek. Mike wanted to talk about four shootings that had recently occurred in Western Pennsylvania.
The circumstances behind the shootings differed widely: A garage owner who shot a pistol-wielding robber and killed him … A 21-year-old man who was killed with his own gun by his ex-girlfriend’s current boyfriend after showing up at her townhouse one night… A 62-year-old home owner who fired 4-5 rounds into a car containing a man and his girlfriend because he believed the man was “throwing bricks at his house” (the man was hit in the leg and wounded) … And finally, a 20-year-old woman who wrestled a gun away from a teenage robber in an alley late one night and shot him to death.
When Pintek introduced our segment on December 17, he openly celebrated all of these shootings, describing them as justifiable homicides (or attempted homicides) by “law-abiding” citizens. He opined that those killed in these incidents were thugs and criminals who were a drain on society—they were worthless and should not be missed.
I took a different tact. I stated that while two of the shootings appeared to be justified given the scant facts we had on hand—the ones involving the garage owner and the 20-year-old woman—the other two were clearly not. Two young men fighting over a woman is not cause for murder. Nor is a brick being thrown at a house, if indeed that happened. Furthermore, I noted that the violence in all these incidents escalated because of the unbelievably easy access that Americans—including children, criminals, and those with impaired judgment—have to firearms. That didn’t sit well with Pintek, but we agreed to disagree and parted ways politely.
I was therefore surprised to receive an instant message shortly thereafter from a friend who had tuned into the show. “Did you hear what Pintek did after you signed off?” she asked. She then informed me that he had read a comment on the air from a listener who took exception to my remarks…and stated that he wanted to shoot me. This was apparently just fine with Pintek—he made no mention that shooting people who disagree with you is neither morally or legally justifiable.
The email I sent that day to Pintek’s program director, Marshall Adams, seeking his comment and plan of action regarding this threat has yet to be answered.
For some reason, weeks like the ones described above just make me more determined to prevent the loss of life to gun violence, and to build a more peaceful society. I suspect that many of you who write and comment here at Waging Nonviolence are the same way. Thank you for your good works and for gaining energy from adversity.
I have saved my life one time and saved someone elses also.
Other than that I have not used my gun in 25 yrs unless I am at the range. BTW I did not even have to shoot. On Dec 6 someone brok into my Father-laws home. As the guy came trough thr broken patio door he found my father-inlaw pointing a gun at his chest. No shots fired. The police said by the foot prints outside there were two guys. Had it been you< I guess you would have just used harsh language to scare them away. Here is the deal. A person will never ever need a gun. Unless they need a gun. If they need it and do not have it. Only one of three theing will happen. 1. They will luck out and not be hurt. 2. They will be injured in some manner. 3 They will be murdered. Not that complex realy. I am sorry that some people abuse guns. I am sorry some people abuse drugs. Drive drunk. etc But I will not disarm. However I respect your right to be defensles as only three things can happen.
I would certainly agree with an early statement you made. “…a push for nonviolence is desperately needed in the United States.” However, tools do not influence behavior of the tool-users. Guns cause or escalate crime in much the same way that forks cause or escalate obesity. They don’t. The choices made by the tool-user is what causes positive or negative uses of the tool. If one denies firearms to a man who wishes to kill his wife, he will not simply become non-aggressive and loving toward his wife as a result. He will find another tool to use.
Banning, restricting, or licensing gun owners, guns or their usage will not cause this nation, or any other, to become less violent. It will just mean the violence will be committed with a different tool, and with the same frequency.
It would be good if a wife-defending husband would simply find another tool. How about a nonlethal one? Why not try to use a club?
Besides, gun control does not mean “outlawing civilian ownership of all guns whatsoever.” So I don’t see the point of either of the first two comments.
No one is forcing everyday people to completely disarm — just those with criminal records or impaired judgment; and everyday people have no need for semi-automatics or other such weapons. Does a handgun work well enough? Sadly, it works a little too well.
I would like to see tasers get more frequent use, and someday perhaps also ranged tasing weapons to immobilize hostile folk.
The sad irony of death threats towards someone speaking out against increased access to firearms could not be greater.
The issue for the pro-gun lobby seems to be less about personal / private safety and more an unwillingness to recognise that a dangerous weapon is designed for causing injury and death and the onus should be on the purchaser to argue why s/he needs a gun, not on society to argue why people should not have guns.
Given the statistics on gun-related deaths (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence), possessing firearms as a protective measure is counter-productive to personal safety. The argument that guns are passive “implements” simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The greater the access to firearms the greater the number of deaths by firearms – intentionally and accidentally. The arguement that someone willing to kill with a gun would simply substitute with another weapon if denied access does not hold up. Guns provide easy, fast and impersonal means of attacking another human being. This makes them extra dangerous in “crimes of passion”. Attempting to kill another with other weapons – hands, knives, clubs, etc, while very possible requires the attacker to break the human bond in a way that a gun does not. Fewer guns translates into fewer deaths.
There are plenty of non-lethal (not to mention nonviolent) forms of self-protection and a thorough grounding in nonviolent responses to violent threats from an early age would be helpful tools in disarming violent and potentially violent situations.
It’s hard to see how someone could kill 6 people (injuring 18 in total) without a gun in Arizona this weekend (http://www.smh.com.au/world/baby-of-hope-shot-dead-by-gunman-20110109-19jpr.html). Yes, the access to firearms really does matter.
Keep up the great work Ladd!
Thank you, Chris. It’s a sad and tragic irony that the horrific rampage in Tucson occurred just 3 days after I posted this blog. Obviously, Loughner was an individual that never should have been able to legally purchase a firearm in any sane, civilized society. The incident demonstrates how utterly porous and dangerous our nation’s gun laws have become. It’s more important than ever for people to call their Members of Congress at (202) 224-3121 and demand tougher gun laws that do more than a cursory screen for gun purchasers in terms of mental health background. The 33-round clip that Loughner used to devastating effect also has no use other than to kill large number of human beings. It is a battlefield tool. We can do better and we must do better.
Sir,our goverment cannot control the flow of drugs into the U.S., do you honestly believe that the flow of guns would not become something else for drug importers to sell? Cocaine and Heroin cannot even be manufactured in the US,yet its here in great amounts.Eastern bloc countries have huge quanities of real “assault weapons” that would be/are avalible to anyone with the money to buy them,think of what you see “terrorists” carrying on the news stories.Young people need to be taught that taking a life is something no person should want to do unless it is the only option left to them. I and my family have had and used guns for many years and I could not think of a better way to explain away the cartoon violence they see in movies and TV when they see and fire real guns and what they can do to a inanimate object or an animal that I have hunted.You are fighting a battle that cant be won i wonder if you chose this issue for just that reason.Everyone knows violence will occour when little worth is given to life itself the problem worsens. You sir,even in this horrible economy have job security and I wonder if that is the real reason you chose this issue.
What part of “shall not” is so difficult to understand? Pesky thing, that Constitution.
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
Hmmmm…I think I remember some additional wording in the Second Amendment, D. Killion.
“Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty as well as by the abuses of power … The former rather than the latter is apparently most to be apprehended by the United States.”
-James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, from Federalist No. 63
Fair enough, but it does not change anything: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
hmmmm…Federalist 63 debates the composition, election and the term of the Senate. Square peg, round hole.
Try Madison in Federalist 46…
“The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
All of Madison’s discussion of the right to keep and bear arms in the Federalist Papers concerned arms-bearing in well regulated militias that operated solely under the authority of state governments. Madison makes this entirely clear in Federalist No. 46 itself when he refers to:
“A militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.”
Nowhere in any of Madison’s writings – and nowhere in any of the surviving debate over the bill of rights in Congress – is the right to bear arms discussed in the context of individual self-defense.
Here’s another Madison quote:
“There never was a government without force. What is the meaning of government? An institution to make people do their duty. A government leaving it to a man to do his duty, or not, as he pleases, would be a new species of government, or rather no government at all.”
– James Madison to Patrick Henry at Virginia Ratifying Convention
Madison understood as well as anyone that regulation was necessary in order to ensure individual liberty, particularly in the wake of Shays’ Rebellion and the other internal instability that precipitated his drafting of the Constitution.
We have the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms and Defend Ourselves – 2nd Amendment
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It is a right not a privilege, just like you have the right to live and breath.
Right to Bear Arms is an unalienable right; it cannot be given to someone by someone else, they already have it at birth, and thus, it cannot be taken away no matter how good the reason seems to be.
“Do not punish or deny the rights of the masses for the sins of the few”
This applies to any and all rights and privileges stated in the Constitution of the United States.
The Second Amendment is one of our most cherished. The right to keep and bear arms is what keeps government subservient to its citizenry. Without the right to bear arms, we would have anarchy in the streets, the criminals would still have guns, and violent crime would escalate.
Thomas Paine:
“Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.”
We plan on exercising these rights to the fullest extent of the Constitutional Law.
Our society today is brainwashed that when some people abuse their constitutional rights we must punish all of society and revoke that right and privilege.
When some one uses a weapon, any weapon, gun, knife, pick, ax, saw, car, etc. they get prosecuted, when convicted, they are sentenced not all the people of the country.
Abuse by some people has been going on since creation and will continue till the end of time. We must control and punish the abusers, not the whole society.
Case and point is the punishment society is taking today due to terrorism. Since governments are helpless to fight and control terrorism they punish the masses in the name of safety and cause extreme economic hardship and the loss of our constitutional liberties.
There are Nations that under their Laws citizens are permitted to posses firearms. Check out some of those countries. Crime rate has not increased. Abuses happen, the abusers are punished and not the rest of society.
It is a known historical fact that the Criminal will always find a way to get a weapon.
Restricting the average citizen from having a weapon to protect himself and his family, leaves the door open to the criminal to violate those citizens, due to the knowledge that the average citizen has no weapon and cannot protect himself and his family.
A weapon is a tool like any other tool and should be used properly.
A knife, pick, ax, saw, car, etc. is also a tool that must be used properly. It is not outlawed, is it?
A car in today’s society is an absolute must. Do the citizens of this country know how many people are killed and injured by automobiles every year, it amounts to thousands, which is much less than with guns.
And to those who would say this was but a “temporary violation” for the greater good, Ben Franklin admonishes;
“THOSE WHO WOULD GIVE UP LIBERTIES TO OBTAIN FREEDOM DESERVE NEITHER.
Folks, we live in dangerous times, a government that does not trust its citizens to bear arms, is a government not to be trusted by its citizens.
As the threat to all of our liberties continue basically unabated, remember the words of the great political philosopher Edmund Burke; “The only way for evil men to prosper is for good men to do nothing.”
The right to keep and bear arms should be of great importance to all Americans, if we are to remain a free country we MUST NOT let this right be taken from us
Remember, freedom isn’t free. God Bless you, and God, please bless the United States of America.
By: YJ Draiman, Northridge, CA
PS
The Supreme Court ruled on the Heller case at the end of its term in June, 2008. The Court, which found for Heller in a close 5-4 decision, wrote that the 2nd Amendment did, in fact, protect an individual right. While the court was careful to note that the case did not call into question any laws that regulate guns, it did state, unequivocally, that Heller and his fellow petitioners had a right to own guns in their home. The Court also ruled that while reasonable regulation may be permitted, the requirement that guns be locked and disassembled was not reasonable.
Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms
Tuesday, June 29, 2010;
MCDONALD v. CHICAGO Syllabus
The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense. Pp. 5–9, 11–19, 19–33.
The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates.
The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an “avalanche” of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation.
But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court’s dominant conservatives, said: “It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”
The decision extended the court’s 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that “the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.
Dear Mr. Everitt: It is time for those of us who believe the Second Amendment should be repealed to stand up and run for Congress. In support of this I am accumulating links to web articles and lead comments at http://www.mjbarkl.com/run.htm . Best wishes, –Mike
Mike,
The Second Amendment does not need to be repealed. It simply needs to be interpreted properly, as it was for 200+ years prior to the D.C. v. Heller decision (2008). And I do believe that future decisions by the Court will bring us back to the original understanding of the amendment.
So I will not sign your petition, nor will I urge others to do so.
It should also be noted that even under the 5-4 Heller decision, there is a very broad range of gun control regulation that is reasonable and constitutional. As Justice Scalia wrote in the decision:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
As for those of us who are concerned about this issue running for office, I think that’s great advice! If that is the path you are on, I wish you the best of luck.
Ladd Everitt wrote,
> It should also be noted that even under the 5-4 Heller
> decision, there is a very broad range of gun control
> regulation that is reasonable and constitutional. As
> Justice Scalia wrote in the decision:…
Unfortunately for the rest of us, Justice Scalia’s comments, essentially a Constitutionally-unsupported bone tossed in the general direction of gun control, came after his decision cast into doubt the validity of ALL gun control under this 5-4 Court when taken in light of the subsequent McDonald Decision.
Certainly, don’t “sign your petition” (there is none) if you feel it is unnecessary, but all this ignores the basic problem: too many guns, too easy access. Nobody in DC is doing anything more than nibbling at this problem. I’ve drafted appropriate Resolution and Legislation to Repeal the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, including the Second Amendment, see again http://www.mjbarkl.com/run.htm . You are correct: the Second Amendment does not need to be repealed. The entire RKBA needs to be repealed.
The legislation proposes a tax. Under the tax, private sales stop, gun shows disappear, most dealers disappear, inventory drops, access declines, Mr. Loughner’s favorite gun store learns to take a really good hard proprietary insurance-motivated look at its customers, Timothy McVeigh cannot arrange to rob Roger Moore to finance his Oklahoma City bombing, and so on. People retain a reasonable inventory but the profligacy disappears.
If you are certain that Justice Scalia is telling you straight then do nothing. Justice Stevens seems to feel otherwise. If you lean towards Justice Stevens, join me. Run for Congress. Fix this.
Best wishes, –Mike , Candidate for Congress
A polluted society
The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints.
We spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy it less.
We have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time;
We have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, but more problems; more medicine, but less wellness.
We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry too quickly, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too seldom, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.
We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values.
We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.
We’ve learned how to make a living, but not a life; we’ve added years to life, not life to years.
We’ve been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbor.
We’ve conquered outer space, but not inner space.
We’ve done larger things, but not better things.
We’ve cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul.
We’ve split the atom, but not our prejudice.
We write more, but learn less.
We plan more, but accomplish less.
We’ve learned to rush, but not to wait.
We build more computers to hold more information to produce more copies than ever, but have less communication.
These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion; tall men, and short character; steep profits, and shallow relationships.
These are the times of world peace, but domestic warfare; more leisure, but less fun; more kinds of food, but less nutrition.
These are days of two incomes, but more divorce; of fancier houses, but broken homes.
These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throw-away morality, one-night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer to quiet, to kill.
It is a time when there is much in the show window and nothing in the stockroom; a time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just ignore it.
Gun control laws should really be passed. There are just so many violent events that is happening these days because of loose firearms. I just hope that the government will be more strict when it comes to guns.`,”..
Hope This Helps!
http://www.healthmedicinelab.com“>